By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, July 14, 2017
One of the hallmarks of the “Ugly American” is the habit
of thinking foreigners will understand what you’re saying if just shout it
louder and louder.
The Ugly Environmentalist does something similar. He
exaggerates the challenge of global warming by using ever more hysterical
rhetoric, thinking that if the last doomsday prediction didn’t work, this one
will.
For instance, Stephen Hawking, the famous astrophysicist,
recently said that the consequences of Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris
climate accord were monumental: “Trump’s action could push the Earth over the
brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees (Celsius), and
raining sulfuric acid.”
As Nathan Cofnas notes in the Weekly Standard, this is nuts. The share of the atmosphere taken up
by that vile gas carbon dioxide (which just happens to sustain all plant life)
is 400 parts per million. It’s been much higher than that in the past without boiling
the oceans or raining acid from the sky. Cofnas also mentions that Venus is
nearly 26 million miles closer to the sun, and that the share of carbon dioxide
in the Venusian atmosphere is 965,000 parts per million, or about 2,412 times
greater than Earth’s.
And that’s Hawking, a serious scientist (at least in his
own field). Journalists, always looking for novelty and drama, can be worse. A
recent New York magazine cover story on climate change assured readers that all
of the previous climate-change alarmism was too tepid. Basically, by the end of
the century, the living will envy the dead and much of the planet will be
uninhabitable or a reenactment of a Mad Max movie.
To the credit of some journalists and climate scientists,
the New York magazine article got
considerable pushback, even from normally alarmist Penn State professor Michael
Mann.
Rachel Becker, a science writer, had a good take as well.
Research shows that “scare tactics can backfire when people put up their
psychological defenses against the threatening information,” Becker wrote at The Verge, “rather than defending
against the threat itself.”
That’s true. The more you sound like some
cowbell-wielding street preacher wearing a sandwich board that says “The End Is
Nigh!” the more likely it is that people will ignore you. Particularly if your
last few terrifying predictions didn’t pan out.
But this focus on how using scare tactics doesn’t
persuade skeptics overlooks another problem. What about the people it does
persuade? If you honestly believe that climate change will end all life on
earth (it won’t) or lead to some dystopian hell where we use the skulls of our
former friends and neighbors to collect water droplets from cacti, what
policies wouldn’t you endorse to stop it?
There’s a rich school of journalistic and academic
nonsense out there about how democracy may not be up to the job of fighting
climate change, and why people who question climate change must be silenced by
the state. It’s remarkable how many of the people who rightly recoil in horror
at the idea of using, say, the war on terror to justify curtailing civil
liberties have no such response when someone floats similar ideas for the war
on climate change.
The environment editor for the left-wing British
newspaper the Guardian, Damian
Carrington, recently wrote a piece fretting about how having kids doesn’t help
fight climate change. Jill Filipovic, a feminist writer, endorsed the article.
“Having children is one of the worst things you can do for the planet,” she
wrote on Twitter. “Have one less and conserve resources.”
I found this interestingly dumb. Filipovic is precisely
one of those writers you’d expect to go ballistic if some conservative
Christian opined about the reproductive choices women should make. But if it’s
in the name of the environment? Let’s wag those fingers, everybody!
I believe, along with the late economist Julian Simon,
that humans are the ultimate resource. We solve problems, and I think we’ll
solve climate change too.
But if you really want to yoke your reproductive choices
to the issue of climate change (a bizarre desire if you ask me), maybe you
should have as many kids as possible and educate them in science and
engineering so they can come up with a solution.
For instance, did you know America may end up complying
with our Paris-accord obligations despite our withdrawal? It’s all thanks to
breakthroughs in natural gas, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. Thank
goodness the people who came up with that stuff didn’t have parents who believed
all the hype.
No comments:
Post a Comment